General Committee - 17 February 2025
Date: Monday, 17 February 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:44:57
Synopsis: Tinbeerwah Facility: minor change approved; Condition 21 monitoring; fence rejected, Planning: code-assessable; appeal risk, Finance: revenue up; spend under; 10m cash, Hub: NextPlay lease.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions General Committee approved a minor change for a home-based meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Dr, Tinbeerwah: changed Condition 10 (allow up to two employees 8:00–16:00 Mon–Fri), refused deletion of Condition 21 but amended it, and deleted Condition 6; carried 5–2 (For: Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegener, Phillips; Against: Lorentson, Finzel) (Minutes 7.1; 24:09–24:38, 55:33–56:49). Brian Stockwell first moved to delete Condition 21 (time limit), arguing code-assessable uses are not time-limited; motion lost (Minutes 7.1; 08:04–09:46, 23:25–24:09). Frank Wilkie then moved the staff recommendation to retain a modified Condition 21 to enable ongoing monitoring; carried (Minutes 7.1; 24:09–26:26, 55:33–56:49). Karen Finzel sought a deferral to allow staff to engage parties on a boundary fence; lapsed for want of a seconder (Minutes 7.1; 53:20–55:08). Peregian Digital Hub lease for Tenancy A2 to NextPlay for 1 year, with CEO authorised to award one 2‑year option; carried unanimously (Minutes 8.1; 57:25–58:02, 01:01:15–01:03:23). Financial Performance for Jan 2025 noted: operating revenue +$1.6m above budget, operating expenditure $0.77m under; capital revenue +$9m (grant timing); cash $110m with $30m in term deposits (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Operational Plan Q2 progress: 82% of 107 initiatives completed/on track; turnover ~19% to 31 Dec (public sector avg ~18%); new corporate planning system coming (Minutes 8.3; 01:22:23–01:26:01). Staffing pressures highlighted recruitment/retention challenges (engineering, finance, project mgmt) and Noosa cost-of-living impacts; strategic workforce plan and retention actions underway (Minutes 8.3; 01:26:05–01:28:28). Civil operations over‑spend drivers include vegetation growth, reduced roadside passes now requiring heavier clearing, and higher traffic control costs due to safety legislation (Minutes 8.2; 01:13:52–01:16:28). Amelia Lorentson left the meeting at 1:40 pm (Minutes 8.1; noted). Contentious / Transparency Matters Process confusion occurred over whether Wilkie’s proposal was an amendment or a new motion, with points of order and chair guidance before reverting to staff recommendation (Minutes 7.1; 13:05–23:35). Privacy cautions were issued by officers when councillors referenced neighbour communications and family details regarding the Tinbeerwah facility (Minutes 7.1; 30:03–30:13, 42:06–42:25). Karen Finzel pressed for staff-facilitated talks on a boundary fence to address amenity/mental health concerns; officers warned about reasonableness/relevance under development assessment and private cost-sharing (Minutes 7.1; 49:26–54:47). Amelia Lorentson opposed adding employees, citing neighbour stress and proximity (45 m) despite unsubstantiated complaints; others cautioned planning-scheme consistency must prevail (Minutes 7.1; 27:40–35:09, 55:33–56:49). Amenity checks confirmed extensive landscaping/buffering and prior compliance sign‑off; additional fencing deemed disproportionate to scope of minor change (Minutes 7.1; 36:28–37:50, 41:46–42:06). Community concern legacy from original 2021 approval drove insistence on retaining a reviewed time‑limit condition for monitoring (Minutes 7.1; 11:46–15:54, 24:38–25:41). Legal / Risk Planning Act 2016 s63(5) reporting noted; application framed as a “minor change” to a prior approval (Minutes 7.1; motion text). Assessment status : original approval was impact-assessable; post‑2024 State changes make new home‑based business applications code-assessable; time‑limiting code-assessable uses is atypical (Minutes 7.1; 10:11–10:37, 07:21–08:04). State regs prevent schemes from limiting on‑site staff below two; Noosa scheme permits up to six employees for home‑based business on rural/rural‑residential land (Minutes 7.1; 38:38–39:24, 35:17–35:30). Appeal exposure : refusal of two employees where scheme allows six could invite Planning & Environment Court appeal; officers affirmed code‑compliant proposals must be approved (Minutes 7.1; 21:06–21:21, 45:10–45:43). Reasonableness/relevance : conditioning a substantial boundary fence on a narrow minor-change request was flagged as likely unreasonable and could necessitate vegetation removal (Minutes 7.1; 41:46–43:48). Privacy Act risks prompted direction not to disclose identifiable resident details in open meeting (Minutes 7.1; 30:03–30:13, 42:06–42:25). Planning Scheme & Development Control Amenity impacts scoped as unchanged by the staff increase: same 10 deer/week, same shed/location, estimated +4 vehicle movements/day; prior odour/noise complaints unsubstantiated (Minutes 7.1; 01:07–05:27, 05:39–06:26). Condition 21 extends the review period (trial) to monitor any emerging impacts under the modified staffing arrangement through 2029 (Minutes 7.1; 01:07–04:55, 24:09–26:26). Landscaping compliance for the access handle and buffers is in place and signed off; minor extra planting considered marginal benefit (Minutes 7.1; 36:28–37:50, 44:35–45:10). Rural-residential zone context and Noosa Plan support for home‑based enterprise were emphasised, with niche feral‑deer control and gourmet product framed as dual community/environmental benefits (Minutes 7.1; 20:46–21:06, 49:26–50:57). Digital Economy & Peregian Digital Hub NextPlay lease at commercial rate without discount for 1 year; tenant formed by three participants who met via the Hub; prior tenant “graduated” overseas while retaining local team (Minutes 8.1; 01:01:15–01:03:38). Sector growth focus on tech talent and AI capability-building; Hub programs credited with youth upskilling and startup pipeline (Minutes 8.1; 01:04:11–01:05:01, 01:05:01–01:07:05). Financial & Operational Performance Highlights Revenue drivers included higher interest (+$1.1m), goods/services (+$0.3m), grants (+$0.164m), other (+$0.24m); DA fees down ~$0.35m pending large applications’ progress (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Expenditure under budget due to leave timing and materials/services; waste underspend tied to lower-than-forecast contract rises (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Landfill rehab provisions are tracking down as capping proceeds; explanations given for provisions movement (Minutes 8.2; 01:16:28–01:17:29). Unplanned demands on staff time called out as a risk to delivery; councillors urged to align new asks with the adopted, funded Operational Plan (Minutes 8.3; 01:36:47–01:38:24). Multi‑year plans (e.g., Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan) proceed over several years; Q2 shows action subsets only (Minutes 8.3; 01:40:11–01:40:35). Environmental Concerns Deer processing framed as supporting feral animal control while enabling a niche food enterprise; site inspections reported negligible off‑site noise and strong visual screening (Minutes 7.1; 49:26–50:57, 36:28–37:50). Community Transparency & Consultation Historic community interest in the Tinbeerwah approval acknowledged; retention of a review condition positioned as precautionary oversight (Minutes 7.1; 11:46–15:54, 24:38–26:26). Neighbour welfare concerns (stress/anxiety) were raised; officers directed councillors to avoid identifiable disclosures and to rely on planning criteria (Minutes 7.1; 27:40–33:15, 42:06–42:25).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 February 2025 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 12.30pm 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Nil 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 20 January 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 7.1. MCU21/0154.02 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS (MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY) AT 82 PATTERSON DRIVE, TINBEERWAH (REFERRED FROM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 11 FEBRUARY 2025) Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Delete Condition 21 C. Delete condition 6. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Stockwell and Wilson Against: Crs Wilkie, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Lorentson and Finzel. Lost. Amendment Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Replace item B with: Refuse to delete Condition 21 Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Delete condition 6. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: That consideration of item 7.1 be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 February 2025 to allow staff to engage with relevant parties in relation to establishment of boundary fence. The matter lapsed for want of a seconder. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Delete condition 6. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegner and Phillips Against: Crs Lorentson and Finzel Carried. 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1. NEW TENANT - TENANCY A2, PEREGIAN DIGITAL HUB Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Director, Digital Hub & Innovation to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 regarding the commercial lease of office space at the Peregian Digital Hub; B. Agree to enter a commercial lease for Tenancy A2 at the Digital Hub, Peregian Beach, to NextPlay for a 1 year term, as generally outlined in the report; and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 C. Authorise the CEO to award one option of 2 years, subject to the lessee complying with the terms of the lease. Carried unanimously. Cr Amelia Lorentson left the meeting at 1.40pm. 8.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JANUARY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 outlining the January 2025 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 8.3. OPERATIONAL PLAN 2024-25 Q2 QUARTERLY REPORTING Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 17 February 2025 regarding the 2024-25 Operational Plan and: A. Note the progress report for Q2 2024-25 Operational Plan to 31 December 2024 provided as Attachment 1; B. Note the comments on the progress of all initiatives provided as Attachment 2; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Indicators provided as Attachment 3. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 2.14pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.000
I declare the meeting open and wish to acknowledge the Kabi Kabi People, the Traditional Custodians of this land, their elders past, present and emerging. We are all in attendance but we have Councillor Finzel and Councillor Lorentson attending via online means. So welcome all. Confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move? I'll Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. We have no presentations nor do we have deputations so we're moving on to an item referred from committees and there is one of those. It's item 7.1. It's a material use 210154.02. Application for minor change to development approval for Homebased business meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. And we welcome Patrick, Richard, and welcome we also welcome Andrew from the development control team to the table. Andrew 01:01.983
And Andrew, give us an overview. That's it. Thank you. Council is in receipt of an application for change to a approval for Material Change of Use, Homebased business, meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. The change request relates to a number of the development parameters which were applicable to the site when Council gave the approval back in 2021. I'm not sure if everybody is aware of the approval, but the approval given in 2021 relates to the processing of deer meat at the site. The current approval allows for up to 10 deers at the property once a week. So they are the sort of general parameters which are applicable to the site. The only other issue relevant at the moment is that only one person and resident of the site can occupy and undertake the Homebased business use. So that's the current sort of set up. The applicant has requested a change to the approval to allow up to two additional employees to assist mainly because the physical handling of the current approved number of deers to be processed at the site is allowing too much, it's too labour intensive for the owner and the applicant, so they would like to have an additional up to two people to assist during the permitted hours of operation, which are between 8 and 5pm Friday. Thank you. The actual amendment would require a change to number of the conditions of the approval to allow that to occur, as well as between the hours of 8 and 4pm 4:00pm. Monday to Friday. At the moment the property is located within the rural residential zone and it occurs at an existing shed at the property located in the northwest corner so the shed is located approximately 15 metres from the road frontage and is accessed by one driveway battle axe handle to the rear of the site. Upon review of the relevant sort of matters and impacts relevant to the site this would involve an additional two car parking entrance, two car parks, two vehicle movements in the morning to access the rear of the site to undertake the assistance of the shed and then the leaving of the property in a total of four traffic movements per day at the site. Upon review of the application requested changes, it is recommended that the changes be approved. And that the two additional staff members be allowed between the hours the applicant has also requested an extension of a lapsing date, which is relevant to the site as well. Council had originally conditioned that the approval. Be reviewed after a two-year period, and that was applicable to the 17th of December last year. That was requested by the applicant to be removed from the approval. The removal of that condition is not recommended, but extended for an additional two-year period, so on a four-year basis. Up until 2029, but that's right. Brian Stockwell 04:55.203
Okay, do we have any questions? Frank Wilkie 04:57.483
Yes, thank you for the report, Andrew. Change doesn't represent an intensification of use on site, does it? That's right. So still 10 deer per week? Patrick Murphy 05:10.273
Same operating hours, same number of carcasses to be brought onto the site. Same building, just additional staff. Frank Wilkie 05:18.802
And the extension of the two-year trial period, for want of a better word, allows you to monitor the operations if there's any complaints? That's correct. We have extended it out. By four years, so a longer period than what was previously allowed. But noting the change that's proposed, just to ensure that there's no complaints. And during the previous two-year trial period, there were complaints lodged. Could you tell us about the findings? That's correct. When you investigated the complaints. Patrick Murphy 05:51.400
There were some issues raised around some landscaping that it wasn't comprehensive enough in terms of what was required. So there was further landscaping that had been undertaken and signed off earlier last year. There's also been some complaints around who's been attending the sites and vehicle movements. They've been investigated and haven't been substantiated. Brian Stockwell 06:18.489
Thank you. Other questions? No? My only question then is, under the State law now it's a code-assessable application, I can't think of an instance where we have time limited just wonder the merits, if we have had two years of operation without substantiated complaints that they've complied with conditions, whether it is reasonable and relevant to actually limit the four years on a considering, you know, with extra staff there's up to four additional traffic movements on the days that they're actually operating. Point of order, is this a question, Mr Chair? You're probably right, I'm talking too long. So the question is, it general practice to put time limits on code-accessible applications and would this now be considered a code-accessible application? Patrick Murphy 07:21.155
That's a good question. I don't recall that we would have put time limits on a code-accessible application in the past. If a new application was made today it certainly would be code-accessible for this use. Fair to say there was some discussion amongst us as officers in terms of we apply an extended period as well or remove it completely we fell on the side of cautious being in terms of the change so appreciate that could be questioned Brian Stockwell 08:04.080
I think I'll try an amendment I'll just move the motion without the condition requiring a time limit just to test what other councils are thinking of the matter so that will be sorry I haven't got the condition in front of me. That's all right. Condition 21 is condition 21 but deleting condition 21. Correct. SPEAKER_06 08:33.254
I'm going to use this one and just write deleting. Condition 21. And take that out. Larry Sengstock 08:47.634
Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 08:57.454
I have a seconder for that? No. I'll second it. Oh, you'll second it. I just think we've had two years of operation. If anything, having staff on site will mean the processing time is quicker so the potential, you know, we haven't had any impact. Amenity, but will go down. My feeling is that, you know, the State government's made it very clear that home-based businesses can't be any more than code assessable. And as I said, my recollection is we've never put a time-latching period on a code assessable application. And hence, I think that the applicant has demonstrated that they comply can with conditions and that not upset any of the neighbouring properties while conducting a Homebased business. So I don't think it's necessary to have a four-year time-lapse period. Tom Wegener 09:46.358
Question. So when we approve this, that it wasn't code assessable at that time. So is that an approval that's obviously still valid? If we do this and say it's a code assessable, well then it wasn't It doesn't change the nature of the approval in the past. It's not retrospectively code assessable. Is that right? Richard MacGillivray 10:11.651
Correct, yes. So originally it was impact assessable and now with the changes late last year. New application lodged can only be code assessable under the changes to the regulations, planning changes. So it doesn't change anything that's retrospectively. So the existing approval was impact assessable and decided. So none of that's changed. It's just moving forward any new applications. Would only be code assessable. Amelia Lorentson 10:37.200
I answer? Can I ask a question Through the Chair please? Certainly. I'm going back to the report from Patrick and Andrew and agree with your assessment of the request to delete and your explanation was very quite clear due to the unique nature of the list. Point of order Mr Chair, there's a question. My thank you Mayor, my question in response to the reason that was outlined by Councillor Stockwell in terms of code assessment we've never required, you know, that an applicant come back every four years. Patrick Murphy 11:21.447
Have we ever had a meat processing facility approved in the Noosa Shire in the almost 10 years that I've been with Council I don't recall one or I can say there hasn't been another facility like this approved in rural residential zone thank you Frank Wilkie 11:46.680
Look I'll speak to the motion I have appreciate what Council stock was tempted to do is his reasons are valid but um there was considerable interest community this application when it first came to Council and the precautionary principle applied then and I think with the extra staff coming on board I think that to include the extra period for monitoring is wise it can't hurt so for that reason I support the staff recommendation to refuse to delete condition 21 but I appreciate Councillor stockwell's reasons for testing this particular motion and his the reasons behind deleting won't be supporting in its current form so I'll signal that I'll be moving an amendment to refuse to delete condition 21. Brian Stockwell 13:05.188
So would you like to do that now? Frank Wilkie 13:06.768
I will I'll Excuse me Mr Chair. Yes. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 13:13.788
Yes before we proceed I did have my hand up before we do that may I just ask a question? Brian Stockwell 13:19.108
You may sorry. Oh I'm in chain. Oh yeah true sorry. Councillor Finzel. Wilkie had the floor and it's up to him. He has indicated he wants to proceed to move an amendment and then after if that's moved and seconded he can talk and then you can ask your question. Frank Wilkie 13:35.288
So it's the current motion. Thank you. But the change would be to section B refuse to delete condition 21 be substituted for the city thank you that right? No, that refuse to delete condition 21 is substituted. Brian Stockwell 14:23.320
If you just put that and nothing else, take all those words after that off, and then after B put the word refuse and isn't that going to get back to the original and revert back to original it's an amendment because this is the Council of stockwell's move to motion. That is the motion that's been moved before. If mine was an amendment, you'd have to wait for that to go through, but because it was a motion, it's only partially amending. Frank Wilkie 15:05.306
So it would be that B refused to delete condition 21 be inserted, be included. That? No, be included. Okay, refuse and be included. No. Sorry. Be included. Or it would probably be more accurate to say replace. Is be. Brian Stockwell 15:39.340
Replace on be with the words. Yeah. Yeah. Replace. Frank Wilkie 15:44.640
Go back again. Yeah. Replace. Item B. Get rid of B. Okay. That. With refuse to delete. Condition 21. Richard MacGillivray 16:11.567
I'll just. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 16:14.087
Okay. A question Through the Chair, please. Amelia Lorentson 16:19.407
Stockwell. Councillor or maybe question to CEO. Is the replacement of the condition, is it ultra vires? Are we better just to vote on the motion, and then if Councillor Wilkie wants to move forward the original recommendation that we do so? I'm just concerned by that SPEAKER_05 16:45.231
Is directly opposite your intent. Brian Stockwell 16:49.251
Just a question for the CEO. Yeah, no, it's a call of the chairs, not CEOs, that as my motion was in glovo and had condition removed and Councillor Wilkie is only changing that one condition. It definitely is just an amendment to the motion. It's not a direct negative. If he was to move that the matter be refused, that would be a direct negative of the motion. The motion, the amendment. Karen finzel's got a hand up. Oh, but that was for the question. There was no one online who wished to second that? Nope. So the amendment lapses. So we proceed on with the motion. So only Councillor Wilkie and myself have talked to the motion. Tom Wegener 17:58.966
Okay, procedurally. Karen's had her hand up. Brian Stockwell 18:01.826
Sorry, Karen. Your turn for a question. Karen Finzel 18:05.987
Thank you Mr Chair. Just a question to help inform this decision. Regarding the process around managing retrospectively matters before us, given the new conditions by the State, the code accessible assessable for Homebased business, what is the process moving forward? Do we have to stick to the original recommendation back when this was first moved or like Richard MacGillivray 18:43.225
When it comes to a retrospective decision, do we have to stick to the original or can it be changed? I just need that bit of information to take this to the vote. Shaun Walsh 18:52.104
Yes, so the applicant has sought to change the original approval, so what we're considering today are just the elements of that are being sought to be changed. Richard MacGillivray 19:02.836
We're not retrospectively seeking to take away any provisions. The applicant's applied for changes to their approval and we're considering the elements of that change right now. So it doesn't necessarily affect anything historical, what's been decided has been decided, we're just assessing the elements of the changes that the applicant has sought. So that's what we're limited to in terms of our assessment. The regulation changes that the Deputy Mayor raised before relate to new applications moving forward. So a fresh application for Homebased business would be code-assessable now, opposed to one such as this was impact-assessable prior to the change to the regulations. I hope that helps to clarify? Karen Finzel 19:50.754
Yes, that's clarified. Thank you. And just a question. Brian Stockwell 19:54.273
If the application was fresh and was assessed against the code, would the application comply with all aspects of the code? Patrick Murphy 20:05.433
Our so table of assessment, I'll just go back a little bit, allow for accepted development and it has certain provisions that must be met. And some of those elements are included in the code assessment as well. I've the had a look at those the accepted development provisions to see whether this would actually meet accepted development. Because the vehicle movements are likely to cause noise beyond the property boundary, that would trigger it to code assessment. So my review, I think that's about the only provision it wouldn't comply with. Brian Stockwell 20:48.091
It would trigger a code assessment, as opposed to. Considering under the code whether that impact of noise was meets the performance objective. That's correct. In your. And in your reporting you've identified that you believe the noise generated from the site does meet the performance outcomes? Patrick Murphy 21:06.329
That's correct. Brian Stockwell 21:07.169
And is there. If it was to be submitted afresh and your assessment was that considering that, does the act require that Council must approve a code assessable application that meets the performance outcomes of the code? It does. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Tom Wegener 21:29.701
So, my question is, procedurally, I'm not really excited about your amendment, motion, your if this fails, then do we go back to the original, the staff recommendation? Brian Stockwell 21:50.493
No, we wouldn't be able to accept it at this meeting because it's already been tried and tested and hasn't got seconded. We'd have to wait for the Ordinary Meeting. Frank Wilkie 22:03.067
Question to the Chair, because that's what I tried to do through my amendment. Karen Finzel 22:10.028
Yes, and unfortunately, I couldn't ask my question and had to wait as directed by the Chair, because I needed further information to understand the process before my decision. Brian Stockwell 22:26.867
No, I'm wrong. Because the amendment didn't get a seconder, it was never accepted. So nothing other than this has been moved. So it doesn't block it being re-litigated. Amelia Lorentson 22:39.933
Ms Stockwell: so could she clarify, Councillor Stockwell, if this motion fails, we can move the staff recommendation? Brian Stockwell 22:51.273
Mr Stockwell: I believe so. Frank Wilkie 22:57.974
Mr Stockwell: I think there's been a lack of understanding about what's occurring. Mr Stockwell: that's OK. Tom Wegener 23:03.767
Mr so you brought an alternative motion. I thought our normal procedure was we have somebody moves the staff recommendation and then we make an amendment. That have been preferable, wouldn't it? Mr Stockwell: yeah. That's why my gears are clogging up here. You don't always that. Brian Stockwell 23:25.181
Mr Stockwell: sorry. I just sought to get that item of matter dealt with separately. As you say, it probably would be better to as an amendment. But that's. Mr Stockwell: perfectly valid course of action. If there's no one else wish to speak to the motion, I'll put the motion. I still support it. I'll waive my right. That's Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell. Those against the motion. That's Councillor Wilkie Wegener, Phillips, Finzel and Lorentson. I'll move the staff recommendation. Against. Yes. Move to staff okay. Do we have a seconder for the staff recommendation moved by Councillor Wilkie. Karen Finzel 24:18.926
The debate, yes. Brian Stockwell 24:20.706
That's Councillor Finzel second. Councillor Wilkie, you may speak. Councillor Finzel Frank Wilkie 24:24.886
Thank you, Councillors. This is essentially what I was, what you see before you I is what was moving through the amendment to Council stockwell's motion, which means refusing to delete commission 21 means that there will be that trial period for the new arrangements. The two new staff were allowed to work on site and else is as per the staff recommendation so I think the staff have done their due diligence in this regard even though all the complaints made regarding this property and business during the last two-year trial period were found to be unsubstantiated it's I think it's wise to take precautions and still have that trial period continue. Another few Brian Stockwell 25:33.220
Another few years to see if the extra staff on site cause any amenity question for Councillor Lorentson. Finzel can go first, she had her hand up. Is your hand up for another question, Councillor Finzel? Yes, Karen Finzel 25:47.946
Thank you Councillor Lorentson and thank you Mr Chair. Yes, I'd just like to reiterate, I think that in support but, I I'm mean, in support of retaining this condition because I think it does give that greater level of assurity and comfort to the people that have raised their very relevant concerns around this own so. I do support this because I do think it gives us another layer of opportunity to be able to address anything that arises now and into the future. Brian Stockwell 26:26.442
Any other questions, Councillor Lorentson? Unknown 26:29.002
Councillor Lorentson I've got a question for Councillor Stockwell. Amelia Lorentson 26:31.283
Andrew uh I'm referring to the original permit, condition number 21. It states that this permit lapses on 17 December 2022 unless written consent is provided by Council to extend the approval. In assessing an extension will have regard to any complaints received from nearby residents concerning breaches of the development approval conditions and any other relevant matters. I'm just seeking clarification of other relevant matters. Patrick Murphy 27:10.955
I'll try and answer that one, Councillor. It doesn't relate to the relevant matters we might have discussed within the planning legislation. It was just a for a broad scope of assessment by the officers to consider any matters that may be relevant. Not limiting it to just complaints that may have been received, but allowing a broader, as I said, broader scope of assessment. Amelia Lorentson 27:40.120
I'll speak to this, if that's okay. So, I'm not going to support the recommendation in front of us. I don't support A, the recommendation A, which is to approve the application and agree to change condition 10 to allow two employees at the site between the hours of 8 to 4pm. Monday to Friday. I also don't support the recommendation C, which is delete condition six of the original permit. And I'll speak to which stated clearly and was also agreed to by the applicant that the approved use must be conducted by a permanent resident or of the detached house. It was clearly articulated that no employees are permitted. Today I'm just going to speak clearly and straightforward. I'm going to ask the Councillors today to prioritise the interests of the young family that are living 45 metres from the meat processing facility. Shouldn't additional allow the addition to employees and it's my opinion that we keep the current permit conditions which still allows the resident of the dwelling to operate the business but without employees. SPEAKER_05 29:14.823
To me that's the right thing to do and it's also a win-. We acknowledge and respect the wishes of this young family and we also acknowledge that stress and anxiety are real inputs. Amelia Lorentson 29:31.324
Impacts. I'm going to refer to one of the many emails that I've received and I think planning staff have also received this one. This one is from the neighbour and she states that. Brian Stockwell 29:47.969
Just hold on a moment. Sure. Shope I'm just concerned about privacy legislation. Would Councillors be prevented from raising a matter if it had been raised as a complaint to. Richard MacGillivray 30:03.554
Yes, Councillor, I would apply caution regarding privacy act principles. In terms of releasing details about particular. No, Amelia Lorentson 30:13.663
Thank you, Richard. Thank you, and I respect that. I withdraw, I won't talk about that. Okay, so again, going back to my reasons not. Supporting the addition of the extra two employees and just retain the original permanent conditions is that, again, it's the. A win-. The applicant can still operate the business if they want to expand and additional workers, they still can by considering perhaps relocating to a light industrial area. And I just think that the solution to retain the current. Permit conditions benefits both the applicant and the neighbour. Condition 21 of the development approval, and we just heard from the planning staff, states that Council will consider complaints from the residents about breaches of the approval condition. And other relevant matters. So I put it to the council's stress and anxiety, recognised under work, health and safety laws are, in my opinion, relevant matters that must be taken into account. Young family, again, living only 45 metres from the meat processing shed, had three children aged 16, 14 and 12. Of order. SPEAKER_09 31:44.962
I don't believe we should be talking about ages of children living next door. Amelia Lorentson 31:50.922
I respect with children living next door. And I just think that they have put in complaints to Council. And I accept that the complaints have not been substantiated. They have been dismissed. But I think their persistence and the number complaints highlights at the least the severity of their struggles. Our planning laws identify noise, light, odour as impacts, but they don't explicitly recognise mental stress and anxiety. Again, I stress under condition 21 that I believe that these should be considered as other relevant matters. Brian Stockwell 32:44.250
Just a question in regard to number of employees. Was I right in recalling that the State government amendments made it that councils couldn't limit number of employees to any less than two, is that right? On people working on site? Amelia Lorentson 33:04.152
Point of order Councillor Stockwell, is it appropriate for you to be interrupting me midway through my speaking? Oh sorry, I thought you were a city Councillor and I do apologise. No, no, no I haven't, thank you. Yes it is if I wish to, but I'll hold over and I'll let you finish, sorry. Thank you very much. Again, I reiterate mental stress and anxiety are real impacts that affect the wellbeing of our residents and we know this from speaking to residents living next door and surrounded by STAs. Noosa plan is a community document and it's designed specifically to protect our residents. I'm going to refer to section 12 of the Local Government Act that a Councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents area. In 2021 Wilkie has already expressed that there was opposition to this application and the residents stood alongside the family living next door to the meat processing facility. Today I'm asking that we stand beside this young family and acknowledge that stress and anxiety are real impacts. I ask that we prioritise the wellbeing of this young family while still allowing the applicant to operate his business by retaining current. Conditions that allows no employees to operate and conduct the approved use. We again still allow the applicant to continue and to also consider relocating to a more suitable area for health and well-being of nearby residents. Talk lots about putting people before profits. I think today will be a really good example of us doing that. Frank Wilkie 35:09.561
Of staff: is this application entirely consistent with the Noosa planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 35:15.281
Yes and just for some relevance the code talks about up to six employees on rural and more rural residential land being able to assist with home-based businesses. Frank Wilkie 35:30.574
So this application is half the number allowable under number the existing planning taking into account impacts on resident amenity. Was it true that the complaints about odour were investigated and found to be none? Patrick Murphy 35:51.243
That's correct. Thank you. Question. Jessica Phillips 35:56.832
Is there any way through the process of this that conditions like any sort of landscaping or things that somewhere meet in the middle for both the, as I hear Councillor Lorentson's speech and that does really know hit home around the family but then also I just want to know I guess is there ways that we can maybe try a little harder to impose any conditions that might negate some of that. My first question and I've got another one after. Andrew 36:27.022
Um, I Councillor I undertook our site inspection in the middle of January because I haven't seen the actual operation. When you arrive at the property there is an existing landscape buffer on the adjoining properties basically boundary. That's a fairly established landscape buffer already. It runs a full length of the driveway to the back of the shed. And there's also extensive landscaping around the shed. So you would have to be at the shed to view it I think to see the shed. Aside from that there is predominance of established landscaping along the length of the boundary between the shed properties at the moment. So there may be some opportunities for some minor additional landscaping but because of the amount already there in place it would be you know something that could be done as a token sort of thing I suppose. But you know there is substantial landscaping within the property already. It was also a condition of the previous approval that some in-field planting be undertaken. That's has been done and it's been basically shown by the applicant where that's occurred. I saw that on the day I was there as well. Jessica Phillips 37:44.888
Do I have a question? So Councillor Phillips, you can go to the second one and we'll get to you next. When you attend do you, is it appropriate ever to go to the neighbours to see, I know sometimes you can get one view from one, has that ever been tested? I guess to make sure that it's appropriate from the neighbouring as well? To enter their site to look, I didn't do that on the day, I did offer to meet the neighbour but there was an email error so I wasn't able to meet the neighbouring person on the day. SPEAKER_09 38:20.922
And just one more question please, the State legislation about six employees, does that or if not I'll stop. Up if it was refused? Is there any way they can? Patrick Murphy 38:38.139
So the State, the planning regulations have provisions around Homebased business now and they state that a planning scheme can't require or restrict the number of people on site to less than two. Our planning scheme allows up to six. So you can have your planning scheme can be more liberal than the requirements of the planning regulations in this regard but it be couldn't more stringent. Our planning scheme could not say one staff member on site because that would be a contravention of the two but as I said our scheme allows up to six and also it ten people on four occasions a week if you were conducting a class such as a yoga school or something like that yes Karen Finzel 39:28.422
You just off the back of Councillor Phillips question trying to negotiate a reasonable plan for everyone involved, especially when do talk about stress mental health and well-being you know that could work both ways in this situation when you look at the stress of the not only for the next-door neighbours but also the young family running the business next door we did receive correspondence from the for the neighbouring property. Our we raise it at the P&E committee with regards to my yes, there is, thank you, but question is, did the staff, following the P&E meeting, speak to the both parties with regards to construction of a fence as requested by the neighbouring property to negotiate an equitable outcome for all parties? No, I would say the answer would be no. Sorry, because there's a-- I didn't hear that. Andrew 40:34.476
There is actually, I guess, a bamboo sort of fence in place. I believe it's a chain wire fence running between the two properties. There's already a screening device which includes a sort of a makeshift sort of bamboo screen at the entrance of the property. I'm unsure whether it runs the full length of the actual boundary. I wasn't able to physically get into that area of the site to view that on the day Patrick Murphy 41:02.903
So yeah I think just it's important to know what we're assessing is change to an existing approval to allow an additional two staff members on the site and in that regard the imposition of a condition for a payable. Or a paving fence along a 50-metre block. Long boundary would be unreasonable. If that's our opinion, yeah. Karen Finzel 41:25.800
I didn't hear, sorry, I just didn't clearly hear the answer because I'm just wondering is there opportunity to condition the fence to protect their health and well-being? Brian Stockwell 41:40.774
Yes, I'll repeat in short form what the manager of Development Control said. Basically he said because we're dealing with an application to only change food two conditions in their opinion it would not be reasonable nor relevant to condition a new fence along the boundary between the two properties and I think that's repeating the advice from the Planning & Environment Committee as Richard MacGillivray 42:06.168
Well yeah and could I just sorry add to that Council just be again mindful around privacy act provisions just referring to other parties and correspondence and the like is not really appropriate so just if we can be cautious and careful relating to those matters. Thank you. Andrew 42:28.438
During the initial assessment of the request for change I had a conversation with the applicant who raised I guess the costs involved in going through these processes. Council that was probably the primary sort of focus of their concern having to come back to apply and reapply for extensions to the approval. I was conscious of at the time that you know he was wary of having to kind of come back to Council because it does typically involve engaging planning consultants to make those applications back to Council and paying fees. So I think yeah the addition of substantial fence would be something which would be a big financial cost to the applicant which they probably wouldn't would like to undertake unless it achieved an outcome which would improve the situation at the site outside already there doesn't appear to be any sort of reasonable need for such a substantial structure and also the actual physicality of building a fence of that length along the boundary would require probably the removal of a lot of vegetation that's already in place to get that structure so. Brian Stockwell 43:48.172
Okay, so do we have any other questions? I do and I just referenced condition 19 that the access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants Amelia Lorentson 44:03.081
And shrubs to provide a dense screen of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. Is it, can we request additional screening, planting in certain locations along the driveway to comply with that condition of the approval without amending the motion that's in front of us? Can that be just done as of, just to comply with condition 9. And 20 22? Of the approval? Patrick Murphy 44:35.536
Well, there is an ongoing requirement for the approval holder to have that landscaping installed and maintained. Officers have been to the site and confirmed that the landscaping has undertaken and that condition has been signed satisfied. Off. Andrew's recent site inspection noted a very small section at the front of the property where there is a, like a thatched style fence, which can be seen, but the remainder of the property is well landscaped. And we would consider it is compliant with the condition. Brian Stockwell 45:09.788
Okay, we'll be Frank Wilkie 45:12.849
Just following on from where I think Councillor Phillips is going with her question, is it the case that given the Noosa planning scheme allows to six employees on site that if we refuse this application for an additional two, the applicant would be within their rights to appeal to the Planning & Environment Court? They could, certainly. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 45:37.862
Do Councillor Finzel have your hands up if you wish to talk? Karen Finzel 45:42.582
Yes, thank you. So that leads back to my question, which was regarding the process and the cost of offence. I'm just wondering if we negotiate a condition or agree on for the offence, you know, when we're talking about cost of P&E courts, cost of health and wellbeing and mental health to all parties. You're being very discursive. Okay, my question is, does the process allow for Council today to condition the building of a fence? Thank you, Mr Chair. Patrick Murphy 46:20.748
It's at council's discretion if they want to impose further conditions or agree or otherwise with the officer's condition. Recommendation. Apologies, but as we've already said, we don't think it would be a reasonable condition to impose. Frank Wilkie 46:36.870
It would be something if we included that condition, the applicant could. They appeal, yes. Okay, on the grounds of being unreasonable. That's good. Nicola Wilson 46:50.900
I'll speak to the motion. This business, or home business, has already been approved. The addition of two staff isn't going to change the intensity of the business, it's just to help the owner. About health and safety, at the moment, if the applicant was to fall ill or injured, they wouldn't be able to have anyone on site to help them until business would pretty much fall over, so having up to two employees on staff is obviously the to help business to be sustained under its current conditions. I don't believe the arrival of one or two cars in the morning and departure in the afternoon is anything unreasonable compared to the level of vehicle movements that might occur in a general household. I think these things are a reasonable application for minor change. Brian Stockwell 47:42.677
Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 47:45.317
Just my last question, listening to Ryan. Is there any way between now and thursday's conversation Ordinary Meeting that there's any way. Around a condition of offence or something can be spoken to with the applicant to maybe make everyone's. Meet needs, I guess? Patrick Murphy 48:06.688
We can always go back and speak to the applicant. I think in terms of what Andrew has said, they're finding application process onerous, financially as it is, so I'd be very surprised if they would be agreeable Richard MacGillivray 48:20.208
To any kind of offence. Opportunity already lies there from a civil perspective, and parties can share the costs of establishing a fence along their boundary as well, so the concerns mentioned by Andrew earlier is that might result in some clearing of vegetation to establish a fence, and there is screening of that sort of fence structure that's already in that location as well, so would put it to you that the owners, that the parties could always talk at any stage. To agree to installing a structure. Yes, Karen Finzel 49:01.551
Thank you. Based on that question Through the Chair or CEO of the staff then, are we able to, can I put forward a motion today that we don't make this decision until we provide opportunity for the two parties to talk about shared expenses for erecting a fence to try and achieve an equitable outcome for all parties? Brian Stockwell 49:26.334
That will be up to you to move a procedural motion, Councillor Finzel? I'll talk to the meissen. Motion. The planning scheme offers a lot of strategic support for initiatives food small-scale enterprises that take advantage of our locality and also the interest in a range of different foods that can be either grown or harvested off our landscape. This one has the dual benefit that it is actually controlling the feral animals at the same time as creating a niche gourmet meat product. It has operated successfully without any substantiated problems. We have at the time of the initial application gone out on site and could not hear anything happening within the shed from as soon as you got out basically so nothing like anyone with experience mowing a lawn for example. Was actually no noise coming from the establishment and it has very minor visual impact on any aspects of the neighbourhood. So I believe the request in the application and the staff report are the appropriate ways to hit. Karen Finzel 51:00.073
The Chair, please. Thank you. I just. Take it to the vote and see if we get appetite around the table to postpone this matter until the staff have had opportunity to speak to the neighbouring parties and see if there could be a resolution found with regards to constructing a Councillor Finzel, would you like staff's assistance in framing that in a way that's consistent with the Standing Orders because there's no procedural motion to postpone? I would I'd be delighted. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 51:41.897
So if staff could come up with an appropriate wording for an referral, please. No, it's a different place. Richard MacGillivray 51:58.760
Council, I mean obviously without getting into the wording, have concerns around requiring two parties to come together and make a very important financial decision in a very short time frame under the obligation that we're a development application and they're evaluating a decision that they could make at any point in time. I just question again the reasonableness and relevance staff to be set on a task to engage with independent parties on the basis of having a conversation about offence so whilst happy to assist with some wording that would be my only comment in relation to the expectation of staff to create the situation for parties to come back to Council so question just to give some further consideration before we finalise some drafting. Brian Stockwell 53:10.023
Could just move this then, suggest what the standard deferral motion is and then Council will have a chance to discuss the merits of such a proposal. Patrick Murphy 53:20.523
It dates to between February to allow, officers. Richard MacGillivray 53:34.220
Relevant 7-1 can you say the word be deferred? To allow staff to engage. Parties relation Shaun Walsh 54:06.719
With relevant parties in relation to the establishment of a boundary fence in relation boundary fence Karen Finzel 54:18.820
Question to the staff do you think we make it less prescriptive and they haven't just negotiate alternative outcomes or have to I mean the results I'm raising this is based on your comment that the boundary fence would be a shared cost I've also been looking at costs moving forward to all parties. As well and also very mindful thank you Mr Chair thank you to the staff I'm happy to move it let's put it to the vote and see what happens thank you it's a placebo machine, don't we? Brian Stockwell 55:02.190
Proceeding motion. Yeah, he is. The matter amount of lapses for one of us taking that. Thank you everyone. We go back to the original motion. Then I wish to talk to the motion. Frank Wilkie 55:26.747
I'll then go back to Councillor Wilkie and your opportunity yeah, look, I think there's been some very good points made about the reasons for approving this application. Under the planning scheme in this zone they can have up to six employees on site. It is a valid rural enterprise. If Councillors don't like outcomes that are permissible under the current planning scheme then we don't vote against the planning scheme. We seek to amend Planning schemes signal to the community what's permissible. It is unfair. To have this information out there, to have residents make applications in good faith, go to the expense of making and then have their applications refused after going to all that expense for reasons. That are contrary to the planning scheme. If we don't like it, we amend I would urge Councillors to support the process and this Brian Stockwell 57:02.579
Councillor Lorentson so we're going to play it's going to be that your ideas that we wanted no any problems with sound? Okay now we move on to item eight, report to the general committee, and the first is 8.1 and the new tenancy A2 Peregian Digital Hub. Excuse me Mr Chair, I'm out for a second. And we're blessed with the janitor's presence. Thank you. Peregian Digital Hub. And he gave us to give us an overview of this report. Chris 58:06.328
-Worker, Councillors, thank you for the opportunity. We have four office spaces at the Peregian Digital Hub in addition to the shared you workspace with us. That individuals and small teams take up. From time to we have changes in tenancies and under the Council procurement process, we rely on our commercial real estate partner Colliers to help us keep those facilities tenanted with meet the objectives of the Peregian Digital Hub, which are to build the tech and digital sector in the region. And this is really just an update to inform Council that one of those tenancies has been vacated. And we've secured a replacement tenant. And that there's, you know, quite a nice story about the replacement tenant, which is that it's three individuals that have met through the Peregian Digital Hub over the last number of months, and have decided to form a new company. And in so doing, progressed from having an individual sort of co-work-, space to, or co-work desk, to taking a lease with Council to build their company, and hopefully be very successful in our environment. It's a company called NextPlay, and they're the in technology recruitment space, so helping clients find technology talent, and these days using very clever technologies to put employers and employees together. So that's it in a nutshell. We, you know, as a facility that tries to provide an environment for business growth, sometimes we have wins and losses in the sense that early stage companies sometimes find success and grow and sometimes even need to graduate out of our environment. Others might not be sustainable. Oh, sorry, I didn't know if that was background noise. That's right. Other early stage companies might not sustain and may die and, you know, in both of those cases we have to find replacement tenants. So our objective is of course to, through that process, meet both the sort of fiduciary requirements of the procurement process but also ensure that we minimise any revenue losses in between tenants leaving and on new tenants being secured and in this case we've managed to do that. So yes, that's the, it in a nutshell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:02.082
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Jessica Phillips 01:01:06.002
I have a question. Nicola Wilson 01:01:08.082
Forgive me from the system report. Base rental a commercial rate or do we offer any sort of discount? Chris 01:01:16.202
That is a commercial rate. And we do consider, discounts as any sort of commercial would, I guess. In this instance, we decided that because the lease was for an initial one year period, that a discount couldn't be justified. So we managed to agree. With the tenant that's it would be the regular full rate for that period. Brian Stockwell 01:01:48.958
Other questions? Amelia Lorentson 01:01:55.314
Question, will the commercial lease with NextPlay be executed in-house without lawyer? Chris 01:02:06.514
We have used an external firm for all of our leasing up until now in terms of agreements and extensions, so the intention wasn't to bring that in-house necessarily, but this is the first one we've had since we've had in-house Council, so I guess I could take that on. Notice. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:31.421
Thank you very much. Thanks. Larry Sengstock 01:02:33.651
Not necessarily. Brian Stockwell 01:02:37.181
Okay. Does someone wish to move the motion? Councillor Wegener, seconded or Tom Wegener 01:02:46.333
Of course I'll I've never be you know I support the staff recommendation to give this lease. And I want to congratulate the Peregian Digital Hub and yourself for continuing on. And this seems like a in that from within the Peregian Digital Hub itself, we've created a new business that's going to have the space there. And to boot, it's almost like double whammy because they are taking technology to help other startups. So you're actually creating startup Chris 01:03:20.365
That's fantastic. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, it's bittersweet, in fact, because the tenancy that they're replacing is a company that has been very successful at the Peregian Digital Hub that has expanded and is setting up the HQ in Los Angeles. So you sort of, sometimes you're the victim of your own success in this regard, but they've, whilst leaders of that company have moved, they've left a team in Peregian Beach that is growing, so we sort of get the best of both worlds there. But that's, to some extent, that is a sign of success, is if we can help companies grow and they outgrow the facilities that we have, but we want to make sure that they keep some presence here of course because you know it's about creating economic about creating jobs and opportunities for others. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:09.952
Any anyone other else questions wish to speak? Frank Wilkie 01:04:11.592
No, I'd just also congratulate you Chris and your team on how the work you're doing. Especially it's not just the tenancies that renting it's you're doing to upskill the younger generation in coding and digital technologies. They're going to be the digital leaders of the future. They'll be able to create their own businesses and work anywhere in the globe. It's this vacancy as you said, shows that the Peregian Digital Hub is working as intended, where start-ups come in, they grow, they expand, and they move on and create more employment and prosperity elsewhere. Hope preferably within our show but it's um a great place for startups and you've done great work there so keep it up Chris 01:05:01.420
Thank you man, thanks again to everyone for the support in terms of, as you say, the role the hub plays in skill development and knowledge development. I don't think there's ever been a more important time for that. So you'll be hearing a lot from us in that regard this year, particularly with the rise of AI and making sure that our community benefits from that. So there'll be a lot of activity we'll keep you posted on. Thank you. Karen. Karen Finzel 01:05:27.679
Speak? Yes, thank you. I'd like to speak to the Mayor before us. Firstly, thank you to the Peregian Digital Hub and the report. This is an exciting, as you say, we're at an intersection in time that's really exciting and I'm sure our residents will be. Excited as we work diligently towards a sustainable future where we look at diversifying our economy to also try and manage the impacts of congestion and lack of job opportunities and things like that. So I'm really pleased to support this motion. I'm excited that it is visionary and moving forward, that the Digital Hub and everyone there keeps chipping away at, you know, these visions moving forward that's going to bring us and hopefully find meaningful solutions to our community on those issues that meet with them every day in the street where they're at. So happy to support this and looking forward to future endeavours as a space around expanding our economy. And diversification towards businesses away from tourism to meet the expectations of our community that are looking for real everyday solutions to the impacts. So thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 01:06:48.075
Okay. Does anybody else want to talk to motion? No? Councillor Wegener, would you like to close? Tom Wegener 01:06:54.355
Sure. And just a quick note, I'm looking forward to hearing about. Brian Stockwell 01:06:58.155
Sorry, Councillor Lorentson, did you wish to talk? Amelia Lorentson 01:07:05.395
Oh, I did, but I don't know whether anyone heard me. No? No, we did. Oh, hello. Oh excuse me. I just briefly want to talk to you because I'm about to leave the meeting after this report, but I want to just reference. The huge space that digital has placed in workforce and capability planning, and that's coming soon the reports under our after operational reporting, part of our Corporate Plan 2023-2028, we've identified, you know, the importance of think the question that I always ask is, have we in new south. The capacity and capability to deliver services to our community I think and meet future challenges? And I think that's the huge space that you guys. Are filling and it's a really, really important space. We talk about jobs of the future, jobs we don't even know exist, and we also talk about redesigning jobs and how, you know, it's fine. A fire. We keep identifying it as one of our risks in almost every report that comes to Council, resourcing constraints. So I think you play an important space in how we rethink jobs fill that space of capacity and capability. So thank you, crystal, for. Chris. To look forward all the great stuff you do and keep up the great work. Brian Stockwell 01:08:47.021
You very much, okay, thank you. So, Councillor, we'll get back to your slides. Yeah, well, just looking forward to a the report on the student activities over the holidays. That's really exciting as well. Tom Wegener 01:08:58.885
But, yeah, that's it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:09:04.225
Okay. We're voting. Oh, we yes. All those in favour? Yes. Is that all you think, Councillor Finzel? Thank you. And I'm leaving the meeting. Thank you. I'll just wait. Councillor Finzel, if you can do it verbally, please. No, she's got her hand up. I'll take if it's being yes. It's being muted. Yes, Thank you. And we will note that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Bye. Okay, we'll move on point two and that's financial one performance report, January 2025. Margaret Gatt 01:09:53.984
Good afternoon Councillors, how are you all doing? We table the monthly finance report as at 31st of January 2025, and I'll hand over to Pauline, our manager of finance, to take us through the detail of the report. Brian Stockwell 01:10:10.028
And I would, just for the purposes of the record, we have an Acting Director Corporate Services here with us for the next 12 months, and hence why you're not seeing Trent. We have mark. Pauline 01:10:26.668
So firstly, Councillors should note that the January report is now reflective of Budget Review 2, which was adopted by Council last month. Financial performance for the month of January continues to be positive, with operating revenues continuing to outperform forecast and operating expenditure under at this stage of the year. Operating revenue is $1.6 million above budget which is primarily being driven by interest revenue of $1 million, almost $300,000 from sales of goods and services, $164,000 and $240,000 from other revenue sources. This has been offset, however, by lower than forecast Fees and Charges, with development assessment fees down $350,000 noting that there are several large DA applications currently being assessed but, however, due to the stage of completion on those, that revenue has not yet been recognised. Building and plumbing fees, however, are up $120 $127,000 year-to-date. Operating expenditure is $770,000 under budget at this stage of the year, with employee costs $346,000 under budget. I'd like you to note that this is primarily due to the timing of staff taking annual leave, so there's a large contingent leave over December and through January, and due to the way that we profile that, has kind of dipped down quite a bit, so that's sort of driving some of that. Materials and services 190 000 under budget at this stage. We do have overspends currently showing in civil operations of $342,000, and holiday parks is $104,000 over budget as well. You will note with holiday parks that they have a corresponding increase in their revenue line, which also commission line through their reports, so that correlates to their revenue. Waste is currently $428,000 underspent, and that relates to the forecast contract and rise in their contracts not being as high as we anticipated. But overall, council's year-to-date operating position at January 2025 is.4 million of our budget, which will be utilised to fund any emergent issues that happen. Throughout the year. Capital revenue is $9 million above budget and that's due to the timing of our profiling and receipt of QRA disaster funding and our SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget $28.4 million with $18.3 million relating to our disaster projects and $10.1 council's base capital program. This variance is driven largely by budget profiling and the timing of the project delivery. Is currently holding $110 million dollars in cash reserves with 30 million dollars continuing to be invested in higher yielding to term deposits. We have not invested additional funds in term deposits because QTC, where we hold the balance of our funds, is also offering quite high yields at this stage as well. Of the financial year, council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that might arise for the remainder of the year. Brian Stockwell 01:13:33.570
Thank you. So, questions, Councillors? Frank Wilkie 01:13:38.510
Councillor Lorentson. Yeah, thank you very much for the report. I had a question about civil operations expenditure, which is higher than expected. Does that mean it's been a work rate or costs? Pauline 01:13:52.162
So, we have done some investigation and some of it was some re-profiling. However, parks repripiling. And gardens continue to be higher than we had originally forecast in terms of some arborist services and mowing contracts. So, we are doing some more work on that in terms of looking at the timing of that work and seeing where that ends for the remainder of this year. Brian Stockwell 01:14:14.878
Infrastructure also wishes to provide a reply. Shaun Walsh 01:14:19.618
In the budget process for last financial year, we actually executed savings of about $900,000 in the civil assets and operations budget to actually balance the books. We're hoping that there will be a drier year in terms of vegetation growth and vegetation management. That hasn't, done you know, borne fruition and we're actually seeing real costs actually bearing down the budget. You're you recollected for the Councillors I had a good discussion about that, you know, trimming the budget, you know, achieves sustainability and financial expenditure but allowed very little room for reactive works to actually respond to emerging issues. So, and certainly working with civil assets and operations to, you know, further refine the budget but this is the direct consequences of budget savings from the last financial year as well. Frank Wilkie 01:15:03.713
So you're saying this is mainly vegetation, not this work? Shaun Walsh 01:15:07.274
Yeah, that's a large part of it. Some of the initial investigations undertake that some years ago prior to this Council and prior to my executive involvement there was a trimming in the roadside vegetation management budget associated with road safety. There used to be three passes that's now down to one pass. And what's happening is that when we go to do road work such as sheathing works or reselling works, we're having to be hit with significant vegetation clearing works to actually get the road to a safe standard because there needs to be clearance for the vegetation. So that's some of the things we're finding through investigation. The other thing we're finding is a significant increase in safety or traffic control. There was legislative changes about three years ago and we haven't been fully implementing those safe practices recently and we're now having to implement safe traffic control practices. Noting we have had some significant road safety incidents where people have been ignoring traffic control and driving into, attempting to drive into people as well as property. So we're actually, as result of incidents, having to spend a lot more on traffic control to meet standards. Frank Wilkie 01:16:16.269
You. The other question I had was about provisions. In the balance sheet seemed to be projected to be significantly lower than last year. Could you just explain why that would be? Statement of financial position. So are you referring to provisions Pauline 01:16:41.312
11 Provisions 11 million versus eight 8 million yes okay so the large proportion of the provisions relate to our landfill land rehabilitation we don't we've had a several years with forecasting life of that particular facility as well as the cost of doing that it was higher in previous years because we had a bit of a catch-up to do so that bumped our provisions up a little bit higher than what we were before but we also consume those as we do capping works so you'll see we had originally which would have brought that provision down this year we also have employee provisions running through those lines as well so there hasn't been there's only like two million dollar reduction which we would expect to see coming down and particularly in relation to the landfill over time as we do works remediate that site. Frank Wilkie 01:17:27.440
Thank you. And could you also put the below budget actuals for development assessment into some sort of context reasons why? Pauline 01:17:35.980
Well development assessment charges are always dependent on the applications that come in or the works that are being time so it can be Richard MacGillivray 01:17:44.732
We can see different times. I'm not sure if Richard has any statistics in that respect. Through the Chair, we're still getting the steady number of applications coming through. We're probably not getting as many new larger development applications which generate larger fees. As Pauline mentioned we do have a number of large applications which we are withholding some of the revenue from those fees as we progress through the application. So we release that revenue as but overall we're not probably getting as much of that larger revenue DA as we would. We are looking at our Fees and Charges very closely for the upcoming budget to just make sure that the cost recovery principles are being adhered to so that yeah so that those lowering fees are we're recouping our full cost on those to make sure that we end up sort of meeting our budget predictions but we are finding that we're not getting as many as those big new DA fees coming in. That's the only reason for that. Frank Wilkie 01:18:44.376
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:18:46.903
Other questions? Karen Finzel 01:18:50.263
Yes, Thank you. For the report. Comprehensive as always. A question to the Chair, the staff is under budget to 346,000 underspend. Can you just tell me a little bit about the enterprise bargaining agreements and how those conversations are progressing in relation to the budget? Larry Sengstock 01:19:22.011
Yeah, I'm just thinking of what can be said here and what you'd like to know in this forum, Councillor. This is operating on the existing certified agreements. So the existing payments. Yes, the certified agreement has been negotiated. It technically finishes, or it's finished at the end of February. So we have a period now between and July, but we haven't finalised the negotiations of this. New CA at this point in time. So we're making whatever allowances we think will be needed. But until it's finalised, we don't know the exact number Karen Finzel 01:20:08.155
Thank you. Yeah, just I'm not sure I'm going to direct this. Question through. Given we're coming in under budget, do you feel reasonably confident then that we'll be able to negotiate good outcomes for our staff that need to be either being moved from casual positions. Full-time contracts or expecting, you know, they've gone up in a level through staff training, that we have, you know, a budget position that we can provide assurance that we'll be able to manage these effectively? Brian Stockwell 01:20:40.203
Don't think I'll allow the question, Councillor. Larry Sengstock 01:20:44.942
It's getting into matters that are currently under negotiations and that would. An appropriate answer may. Karen Finzel 01:21:00.782
I respect that. Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't want to compromise any of for bringing that to my attention. You. Other questions or does someone wish to move the motion? Happy to Councillor Wilkie? Absolutely, I believe that's what it is though. Thank you for the report. I think it's all been said. As always, the report, you know, gives us a clear indication of where we've been, where we are and where we're going. So keep up the good diligence and these reports are easy to understand. Read. And I think it gives us a really clear indication of where we're headed. Thank you. Anyone else wish to talk? No. Thank you both. Okay. So, Councillor, if no one else wishes to talk, so you don't need to close unless you really want to. I'll put the motion. Happy to proceed, Colin. Brian Stockwell 01:22:00.310
Thank you. I I'll will put the vote in those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Okay, thank you. We'll move now to item 8.3, operation or plan, 2024-25 second quarterly report. Reached 14, and the next meeting. Deb 01:22:26.977
So this report is the Q2 report and it's already identified and it covers the period the 1st of October to the 31st of December. So for all of our viewers, the requirement to report our progress is a statutory requirement and the CEO is to report on our operational performance. This report presents our performance against 107 initiatives by themes and those themes relate to the Corporate Plan. Progress has been good this quarter. We've actually improved and got a number of projects back on track. 82 are either completed or on track with 17 encountering. Minus and two initiatives major disruptions. And compared to the previous quarter we've actually been able to get a couple of projects back on track so that's the. Hence that's shown in the figures. So the attachment 1 gives a detailed breakdown in the report by theme with all of the initiatives and their current progress and their status. There's also some general commentary around the. Current situation which impacts on our initiatives, things like our very heavy community engagement calendar, some of the challenges we face with staff turnover and vacancies in key positions, and then some of the issues around, we have a number of significant plans and strategies which are yet to be finalised, which does impact on the operational areas, especially in relation to the number of projects they're managing, but also being able to bring projects to completion. Attachment 2 is just really a high order summary in a spreadsheet of all of the initiatives by theme as well. Going forward, that probably won't be produced in the report because we're aiming to actually produce the report from our new corporate planning system for the next round of reporting provided goes to plan. So it's a little bit, it's still under development but we're nearly there. And then attachment three just provides an update on the operational KPIs that we've traditionally reported on with some commentary. There are a couple of areas where unfortunately commentary wasn't provided. We had a bit of a hiccup because this is, these reports actually produced from the system and there are just but I'm sure the directors will be able to answer any questions if you had any specifics on that. One that I'd probably like to highlight is the staff turnover figure, which is getting close to the 20%. If you do compare it to a Australian figures, the average turnover rate to December 24 was 14%. And in the public sector, it's 18%. So we're not alone in this situation. So very reflective of public sector figures. Having said that, of course, we need it, especially the delivery of a lot of our projects depends on having those staff, and there are some hot areas at the moment as Frank Wilkie 01:25:30.711
Well. Just a clarifying question on that Deb, about 19%, is that specifically the second quarter? Yes. So it's not showing the current figure for example, which would be reported in the next quarter. So it's to the 31st of December. And in terms of your research around that, the key reasons why there's that high turnout in the public sector at the moment. SPEAKER_06_b 01:26:01.059
Well would you like me to talk to that Larry? I think there's a whole lot of reasons. Yeah look there's a number of factors. You know the we've had difficulty for the last few years recruiting skilled people protecting the technical engineering trades given the amount of capital and infrastructure projects that are going on statewide and even nationally. So there's that. Other is that there generally, normally is movement between local governments and local governments traditionally the way that you got promoted was that you applied for higher positions in other councils and you know we're not a large Council but we're a decent sized Council but so there is movement which just normally occurs in that regard. Other is that the cost of living for employees to come to Noosa and live in Noosa is very high and you might find that you have someone who's actually been successful and when they get here trying to find a place to live is a problem and can they then afford to actually live here and then take position. Are a number of factors. Do you want to throw in any more, Larry? Larry Sengstock 01:27:07.926
Oh I think it's just people that the general there's a general movement of people as well that people just move roles where in the past they've stayed longer in roles and that's it a factor but I think it's cost of it's just a whole range of things that come to play in this and we are making a whole lot of moves as best we can to try to stabilise our workforce but unfortunately you you've of competing requirements you know in we're losing staff and finding it difficult to find staff in our finance areas we've talked before but also in our project management area because there's so much work going on out there that people are either going back into sector or there are other jobs the amount of construction that's going on just in the roads and new facilities that are being built and the Olympics coming so there's a whole lot of work just constantly so we're battling against that and we are trying to make sure that we're competitive from the financial and remuneration as best we can but we are a local government and we've got constraints there as well but so it's a difficult place to do and piece not immune to it we're not sorry we're not alone um the councils around us are having exactly the same issues SPEAKER_06_b 01:28:27.702
Yeah and we have the executive team has recognised this and updated the strategic risk register and some of the actions to address that is reviewing our traction and retention strategies and developing a strategic work workforce plan and progressing that so that's been escalated in our strategic risk register as well which was reported to the Audit and Risk Committee just last week. That's good. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:28:53.910
A question. Probably through to the CEO. I suggested at the SMO if possible for Councillors to be able to make really informed decisions with the exit interviews that we're seeing with staff lead if we could somehow see A workshop or a report around the reasonings why so we get a really good detailed position. Larry Sengstock 01:29:17.477
Sure, we can bring that to you. SPEAKER_06_b 01:29:20.377
I may as well I'll just contribute something further I think it's very important that going forward that you know that in what we're doing in relation to our employee engagement into our leadership that we continue engage with our staff so they want to stay with me as the Council and they are valued and considered to be valued employees so that work which is being headed by Amy in the community in the employee engagement area is really important going forward and making sure you know the well-being of our staff so that people do actually, we can try to retain people. That is an important factor. Going forward. Frank Wilkie 01:30:02.037
Staff recognition awards afternoon, for example. Yep. Things like that. I interrupted you. Do you have any more? SPEAKER_06_b 01:30:13.950
No, that's fine. I'm happy to take on board any questions or the relevant directive can answer more specifically. I'll just kick off. So you said we've got a new system coming through. Brian Stockwell 01:30:23.449
While it's an operational the plan is one year, what we hope to achieve in one year from the Corporate Plan, when staff are reporting, are they looking directly at the operational plan or are they actually reporting against their branch down here? I'm just looking, will the new system actually provide that? Alignment if it's the latter? SPEAKER_06_b 01:30:43.200
It will, when it's fully implemented because we link. It aligns the operational plan, each operational plan initiative with the Corporate Plan objective and it will be able to then flow down that you would then align to branch plans. At the moment those branch plans are sitting in excel spreadsheets or word documents. So it will give us integrated, a more integrated picture of it. Branch plans would contain continue. The initiatives that are in the operational plan as well as other projects and initiatives that relate more to the service delivery side of things that don't necessarily get reported to Council. Brian Stockwell 01:31:25.645
So just to follow on, so the traffic light type approach, if we've got something in the operational planning where the branch says, well, we've had that position break, does that show up in their planning? As in they don't have a lower expectation or does the target we set before knowing that we're going to have a long loss of a key staff member, just a couple in there that I was surprised are showing as on track where I think they're behind. SPEAKER_06_b 01:31:58.172
Yeah, yeah, look, and we sometimes people do actually in their commentary probably, I suppose, want to promote that they are progressing, do you know what I mean? We really will need to keep an eye on that in the third quarter because then we will be looking to develop the new operational plan. In the last quarter there were a number there are several initiatives that were showing minor and major disruptions that have got back on track but it we will need to scrutinize it a little bit more closely to make sure the reporting is accurate but particularly at that quarter three because you do not want to get to quarter four and think everything's progressing just fine on track and then get a surprise but normally that doesn't happen um you know there can be developments in projects with a chat with a Council decision for example which allows things to progress and staff have been working pretty hard to bring things back on track Brian Stockwell 01:32:55.775
Yeah I'm always thinking about this I'm sure when people are filling out their part they're doing it in accordance with their plan but I'm just wondering whether that by nature because we have a 20% vacancy rate that we're not capturing that 20% loss of productivity because it's free yeah yeah that's it yeah we might have to think about maybe on a programming level start looking at what was there yeah to really see the impact of the resourcing on the delivery yeah other questions Tom Wegener 01:33:34.874
Can't believe myself. Hi. 2 do you.6.1 2.6.1 there's a red and the initiative is to undertake the preparatory phase for the proposed development a new community strategy which outlines the community vision for Noosa. And it says that it's a major disruption to Noosa staffing. Well, I'm going to have this actually to speak between the question and the. Now you're talking. Yeah. Thank you. You've got all the other questions. Oh, yes, I'd like to move the motion. Certainly. Now you may speak, I will roll. Okay, first of all. It's very impressive. I look at the year in review and operational plan and it is so big massive that it is impressive. And where I'm going with this is what I said at set out 2.6.1 that we haven't started the undertaking of a preparatory phase for the proposed development of a new community strategy. Uh. I'm looking at this saying this is actually our community strategy. Our operational plan is impressive and what we're doing is utterly amazing and sometimes I consider that we're moving into a Destination Management Plan kind of looking forward where I think our goals of this year are to continue doing what we're doing and to finish because the operational plan is on track. It's fantastic and in my opinion this is the heart and soul of our Noosa Council is just to maintain doing what we are actually and to perhaps celebrate a bit more of successes for example in the operational plan which is delivering the cycling cycle and walking implementation our destination management. The Go Noosa again implement STA local laws. What was your management plan, Public Art Policy, the Noosa Biosphere trail, Botanic Gardens Master Plan, pathway renewals, boating land, the libraries. All of this is within our operational plan and to me this is the heart and soul of what we actually do outward facing to the community. So on a wider level I just love to see us celebrate these and continue doing what we're doing and finishing up and not launching into anything that might detract from this because this is and I don't think anything should overlay working and it's what we're doing. Brian Stockwell 01:36:37.045
So I'm just thoroughly impressed in a nutshell. Thank you. I'll just wish to talk. Frank Wilkie 01:36:49.785
Thank you, Deb, for the report. The one thing I get from this is, as Councillor Wegener said, it's just the enormity of tasks that this Council has set our staff to at the last budget, with 107 initiatives, 88 of them were on track. There's been some disruption to some of them. We've heard the reasons, some of the reasons why. And it just makes me a bit conscious of one of the distractions that I mentioned is unplanned demands on staff time. And I think that's something for us Councillors to be mindful of when we bring extra tasks to the service. Staff to undertake that were not originally set out in the massive budget and funded operational plan that we all unanimously agreed upon when we adopted the budget. But please pass on our thanks to the staff. Great work that they continue to do day after and then there's operational issues on top of this they're just day-to business of the Council that's also churning away as well as these other strategic more initiatives so please thank the staff. Brian Stockwell 01:38:22.148
Thank you. The whole it's a very good report suggesting good progress on track with what we plan to do. We balance that against what that aren't going as quickly as I would like. We have to realise that this report doesn't highlight some of the key issues like Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan, it being one of the ones to be set by a long vacancy. But we also have to make hard decisions about the budget. We didn't put a lot of money in there for restoration of encroachments. We didn't put money in the budget for replacing a coastal engineer to do the beach accesses. So now these are things that don't show up in all the operational plans, but it's what when the community who are engaged look at it in their project and say it's on track but they haven't known what they've said. These are things as councils we have to work out how we communicate that and being be open and on all the same. Side here we hope to achieve more by on now air if I can walk away. Every budget comes up I'll say yeah just increase the funding by ten times and we'll get there. But we have to also be the reality that to fund these initiatives if we don't get grants it comes out of the rate of payers' pocket, so have to balance the desire with the actual reality of having a balanced budget but on the whole this report shows we're on track with doing what we said we'd do this year. Frank Wilkie 01:40:11.923
Anyone else? Just follow up question about that the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is something that's intended to run over multiple years. So and here you've mentioned that you've listed the actions that have been completed under that but there are more years to run before it's all the actions are completed. SPEAKER_06_b 01:40:34.451
Yes it is and there are several other initiatives like that where the plans actually the programs run over a number of years and it's just reporting against the particular year but they do extend over later years. Thank you. Councillor Phillips, would you like to speak? Karen Finzel 01:40:57.294
Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the report, it's comprehensive and gives us a good snapshot and a road map on our destination towards where we're heading. I like the idea that we are reaffirming our continued focus on community resilience, facilities and services. Especially health and well-being, culture and creativity. Again, you know, we've got to work hard as a Council to try and balance our aspirations, set targets and our budget get, you know, equity across the Shire and meet all the needs and expectations. Having said that, you know, our corporate we are striving to support strategies and plans and we are heading towards the Noosa community strategy and social justice charter which will again help ensure that this liveability and Noosa being a place where not only do we respect our biosphere values and our environment but we really focus on our people and where they would like to be and together we're moving forward. So I think we're all working hard in the space including the staff that have presented the report and together we'll keep moving forward on the matters raised. So thank you everybody for the work and the time and the energy that you have put into this body of work. Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:42:37.389
Yeah, budget, I'm hoping that especially the new Councillors will start to begin connecting the dots from the operational plan to the budget and I don't think we really had the opportunity to do that in the last budget session because we were just elected and we kind of rushed in and we had a couple of initiatives that we voted on. But to really perhaps step back and look at the operations what we spend our money on and maybe have a more distant approach to it and see on a more holistic level how things are moving along with the Council. Because my consult is that our operation plan is fantastic and my opinion might be that focusing on initiatives moving forward may be offset somewhat by really looking at what we're doing and finishing appreciating and getting to know a little bit better. Because we need to change, yes but we actually do stuff really well and the meeting and the plan just brought that to me. It's just my gosh you know how the whole system really spins well. We have a very very good stable Shire and this proves it. But to step back and maybe appreciate it little bit more instead of looking off into the future and seeing what's over the horizon, looking at our own backyard. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:44:11.280
The reformed blue star Council win. That That I'll put all those in favour? Yes. And that's unanimous. Brings us, there is no confidential session, so to the close of the meeting. And we will thank Councillors for their attendance and amicable participation in closed meeting at 2:14. Karen Finzel 01:44:44.977
Thank you, Mr Chair. And staff. CEO. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
